I highly doubt it. If someone comes in and claims to be an account holder for a multi billioniare (even a non-famous one) i promise you the banks gonna go through alot more hoops to make sure its the right person. Its only woth the proles they just hand wave that away and blame you for it
> That doesn’t seem like a sensible reading as that would be tautological.
> By definition wealth and power enables those who have it to modify the status quo, otherwise we would call that having delusions of wealth and power.
Wealth and power do not obligate one to do the right thing, it’s true. That doesn’t mean that the onus doesn’t remain on the power structure whose decision making capabilities are enabled by technological means. There’s no one else whose hands last touched the apparatus from whence their technological power flows. We could ask the public collectively to respond, but their hands don’t rest upon the levers of power.
Should we raise taxes on the lower and middle classes to pay for it too? There’s no need, as the truly wealthy don’t need to touch their assets directly or even pay them any mind, as they have hired help for that. The devaluation of privacy hits the little people first, and hardest. Elites are not able to be bothered even performatively by these issues, as they are not subject to these particular failure modes of society.
> Cela consiste pour les pauvres à soutenir et à conserver les riches dans leur puissance et leur oisiveté. Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
> It is the duty of the poor to support and sustain the rich in their power and idleness. In doing so, they have to work before the laws' majestic equality, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
It seemed like you were saying that those in power have a vested interest in solving this social problem because they have more to lose because they have more skin in the game. They actually have almost no exposure to this failure mode because they have lawyers and accountants. They have entire family office services. They don’t suffer due to identity theft even when it happens. Failure isn’t an option or even a distinct possibility, because losses due to identity theft have already been priced into their exposure to liquid markets, and they’re insured for illiquid assets.
It’s not the same for the little people. That was my point.
The only thing I said was it’s tautological… if they couldn’t affect the status quo to their desires, then they wouldn’t be considered to have wealth or power in the first place.
Your argument is that elites who wish to change the status quo, but can’t for whatever reason, aren’t really elites. I agree to a point.
I argue even if the above is true, they truly are elites if the word actually describes anyone accurately and not just aspirationally, and that there are too many cooks in the kitchen for one to rise above the din.
